A hearing before the panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys was held on
March 26, 2002. Respondent failed to appear. The panel received exhibits into evidence and
heard the testimony of Joyce Burns.

After hearing the testimony presented and the arguments of the Disciplinary
Administrator, and after reviewing the exhibits admitted into evidence, the panel made the
following findings of fact:

"1. . . . On October 13, 1989, the Missouri Supreme Court admitted the
Respondent
to the practice of law in the state of Missouri. Then, on May 1, 1996, the Kansas Supreme Court
admitted the Respondent to the practice of law in the state of Kansas. The Respondent's date of
birth is November 3, 1963.

"2. In 1998, the Respondent failed to pay the annual attorney registration fee,
failed to comply with the continuing legal education requirements, and failed to pay the annual
Kansas Continuing Legal Education Commission fee. Thereafter, on November 4, 1998, the
Kansas Supreme Court suspended the Respondent from the practice of law in the state of Kansas.
The Respondent's license to practice law in the state of Kansas remains suspended.

"3. From 1995 through 2000, the Respondent repeatedly failed to timely
comply
with the annual licensing requirements and continuing legal education requirements for the state
of Missouri. As a result, the Respondent's license was not in good standing in Missouri.

"4. In 1997, Wes DeMarco retained the Respondent to handle a claim for back
pay
against a former employer. The Respondent failed to diligently prosecute the claim.
Additionally, the Respondent failed to return Mr. DeMarco's telephone calls and to keep Mr.
DeMarco advised of the status of the claim.

"5. In 1999, the Reagan Car Finance, Inc., engaged the Respondent to file and
prosecute garnishments. The Respondent failed to prosecute the garnishments with diligence.
The Respondent failed to advise his client of the status of the matters and the Respondent failed
to return telephone calls.

"6. The Respondent's misconduct, stemming from his representation of Mr.
DeMarco and Reagan Car Finance, Inc., was reported to the Missouri disciplinary authorities.
During the disciplinary investigation, the Respondent failed to provide information as requested.

"7. On October 24, 2000, the Missouri disciplinary authority forwarded an
Information to the Respondent's last registration address. The Respondent failed to claim the
certified letter containing the Information. As a result, the Missouri disciplinary authorities
published notice to the Respondent. The Respondent failed to answer the Information and the
Respondent failed to request a hearing on the matter.

"8. On March 28, 2001, the Missouri Supreme Court disbarred the
Respondent.

"9. On February 14, 2002, the Disciplinary Administrator filed the Formal
Complaint in this matter. Also on February 14, 2002, the Disciplinary Administrator forwarded
two copies of the Formal Complaint to the Respondent. One copy was sent via
certified mail and
one copy was sent via regular mail. The copy sent via certified mail was
returned marked
unclaimed. The copy sent via regular mail was not returned.

"10. On March 4, 2002, the Disciplinary Administrator filed an Amended Notice
of
Hearing in this matter. The Amended Notice of Hearing stated that the Respondent was entitled
to be represented by counsel, to cross-examine witnesses, and to present evidence. The Amended
Notice of Hearing also stated the date and place of the hearing. Also on March 4, 2002, the
Disciplinary Administrator forwarded two copies of the Amended Notice of Hearing to the
Respondent. One copy was sent via certified mail and one copy was sent
via regular mail. The
copy sent via certified mail had not been claimed at the time of the hearing. The copy
sent via
regular mail was not returned.

"11. The Respondent failed to answer the Formal Complaint filed in this matter.
Additionally, the Respondent failed to appear at the hearing."

The panel noted that the Notice of Hearing, sent prior to the Amended Notice of Hearing, had
included the
incorrect hearing date and Hearing Panel.

'The Disciplinary Administrator shall serve a notice
of hearing upon the respondent, respondent's counsel, and the
complaining parties. The notice shall state that the
respondent is entitled to be represented by counsel, to
cross-examine witnesses, and to present evidence. The notice
shall also state the date and place of the hearing and shall be
served at least fifteen days in advance of the hearing date. . . .'

Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 215, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

'(a) Service upon the respondent of the formal complaint
in any disciplinary proceeding shall be made by the
Disciplinary Administrator, either by personal service or by
certified mail to the address shown on the attorney's most
recent registration, or at his or her last known office address.

. . . .

'(c) Service by mailing under subsection (a) or (b) shall
be deemed complete upon mailing whether or not the same is
actually received.'

In this case, the Disciplinary Administrator complied with Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(d)
by sending a copy of the Amended Notice of Hearing to the Respondent's last
registration address more than fifteen days in advance of the hearing. The
Disciplinary Administrator complied with Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 215(a) by sending a
copy of the Formal Complaint via certified United States mail, postage prepaid, to
the Respondent's most recent registration address. Therefore, the Hearing Panel
concludes that the Respondent was afforded the notice that the Kansas Supreme
Court Rules require.

"2. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 202 provides that '[a] final adjudication in another
jurisdiction
that a lawyer has been guilty of misconduct shall establish conclusively the misconduct for
purposes of a disciplinary proceeding in this state.' Based upon the evidence presented at the
hearing, including Disciplinary Administrator's Exhibits A and B, and pursuant to Kan. Sup. Ct.
R. 202, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent engaged in misconduct and violated
KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4(a), KRPC 3.2, KRPC 5.5(a), KRPC 8.1(b), KRPC 8.4(a), and KRPC
8.4(d)."

"The Kansas Supreme Court Rules do not contain a provision similar to Missouri
Supreme Court Rule 4-5.5(c). That section provides that a lawyer shall not 'practice law in
Missouri if the lawyer is subject to Rule 15 and, because of failure to comply with Rule 15, The
Missouri Bar has referred the lawyer's name to the chief disciplinary counsel of the Commission
on Retirement, Removal and Discipline.' However, the misconduct engaged in by the
Respondent in that regard falls within KRPC 5.5(a)."

The panel further found:

"3. Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing
their clients. See KRPC 1.3. Because the Respondent failed to act with reasonable
diligence and
promptness in representing Mr. DeMarco and Reagan Car Finance, Inc., the Hearing Panel
concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.3.

"5. An attorney violates KRPC 3.2 if he fails to make reasonable efforts to
expedite
litigation consistent with the interests of his client. Because the Respondent failed to make
reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of Mr. DeMarco and Reagan
Car Finance, Inc., the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 3.2.

"6. KRPC 5.5(a) provides that '[a] lawyer shall not . . . practice law in a
jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction.' In
this case, even though the Respondent was not an attorney in good standing in the state of
Missouri, he continued to practice law. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the
Respondent violated KRPC 5.5(a).

"7. The Respondent also violated KRPC 8.1(b). That rule provides:

'[A] lawyer . . . in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall
not . . . knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for
information from [a] disciplinary authority, except that this
rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise
protected by Rule 1.6.'

The Respondent failed to respond to requests from the Missouri disciplinary
authorities during the disciplinary investigation. As such, the Hearing Panel
concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.1(b).

"8. KRPC 8.4 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) Violate or attempt to violate the rules of
professional conduct, knowingly assist or induce
another to do so, or do so through the acts of
another;

. . . .

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice.'

b. The Respondent engaged in conduct that was 'prejudicial to the
administration of justice,' when the Respondent failed to provide diligent
representation, when the Respondent failed to provide reasonable communication,
and when he failed to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of his clients.
Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC
8.4(d).

"9. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) provides, in pertinent part:

'The Respondent shall serve an answer upon the Disciplinary
Administrator within twenty days after the service of the
complaint unless such time is extended by the Disciplinary
Administrator or the hearing panel.'

In this case, the Respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) by failing to file a
written answer to the Formal Complaint. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel
concludes that the Respondent violated Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b)."

The panel made the following recommendations as to discipline:

"In making this recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel considered the
factors
outlined by the American Bar Association in its Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions
(hereinafter 'Standards'). Pursuant to Standard 3, the factors to be considered are the duty
violated, the lawyer's mental state, the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's
misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.

"Duty Violated. The Respondent violated his duty to his clients to
provide diligent
representation and adequate communication. Additionally, the Respondent violated his duty to
the legal profession when he failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation in Missouri.

"Mental State. The Respondent knowingly violated his duty to his
clients and to the
legal profession.

"Injury. The legal profession suffered an injury when the Respondent
failed to cooperate
in the disciplinary investigation.

"Aggravating or Mitigating Factors. Aggravating circumstances are
any considerations
or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In reaching its
recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel, in this case, found the following aggravating
factors present:

"A Pattern of Misconduct. The Respondent engaged in a pattern of
misconduct when he
failed to provide diligent representation and adequate communication to Mr. DeMarco and
Reagan Car Finance, Inc.

"Bad Faith Obstruction of the Disciplinary Proceeding by Intentionally Failing
to
Comply with Rules or Orders of the Disciplinary Process. The Respondent failed to file an
answer in this case.

"Mitigating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may justify a
reduction
in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In reaching its recommendation for discipline, the
Hearing Panel, in this case, found the following mitigating circumstances present:

"Absence of a Prior Disciplinary Record. The Respondent had not
previously been
disciplined.

"Imposition of Other Penalties or Sanctions. The Respondent has been
disbarred in the
state of Missouri.

"In addition to the above-cited factors, the Hearing Panel has thoroughly examined
and
considered Standard 4.41. That standard provides that:

'Disbarment is generally appropriate when:

(a) a lawyer abandons the practice and causes serious or
potentially serious injury to a client; or

(b) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a
client and causes serious injury to a client; or

(c) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect with respect
to client matters and causes serious or potentially serious
injury to a client.'

In this case, the Respondent failed to provide diligent representation and adequate
communication to two clients. Thereafter, the Respondent failed to participate in the disciplinary
process.

"Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and based upon the
decision of the Missouri Supreme Court, the Hearing Panel unanimously recommends that
Respondent be disbarred."

We note that the respondent, having been notified of these proceedings, failed to respond
or appear before this court. This failure to appear constitutes a violation of Supreme Court Rule
212(d) (2001 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 263).

We conclude the panel's findings are established by clear and convincing evidence and
adopt the panel's conclusions of law and recommendation of discipline.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondent, Steven S. Griswold, be and he is
hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Kansas in accordance with Supreme
Court Rule 203(a)(1) (2001 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 224) for his violations of the KRPC and Supreme
Court Rules.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Appellate Courts strike the name of
Steven S. Griswold from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order be published in the official Kansas Reports
and that the costs of this action be assessed to the respondent.

LARSON, S.J., assigned.

REPORTER'S NOTE: Hon. Edward Larson became a Senior Judge upon
his retirement from
the Supreme Court effective September 4, 2002. Pursuant to the authority vested in the Supreme
Court by K.S.A. 20-2616, he was assigned to hear this case to fill the vacancy created by his
retirement.